17 N.Y.3d 643 (2011)
r
r
A claim of duplicitousness in an indictment must be preserved at trial, and a trial court’s discretion to exclude evidence is limited when that evidence is critical to a co-defendant’s defense.
r
r
Summary
r
Corey Becoats and Jason Wright were convicted of manslaughter and robbery. They appealed, arguing the robbery count was duplicitous, the trial court improperly denied an adjournment to secure a witness, and the evidence was insufficient to support the robbery conviction. Wright argued the court erred in excluding Small’s testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed Becoats’ conviction but reversed Wright’s, holding the duplicity argument unpreserved, the adjournment denial was within the court’s discretion, but excluding Small’s testimony was prejudicial error as it deprived Wright of a key defense.
r
r
Facts
r
Becoats and Wright, along with Sherrod Carter, were alleged to have attacked and killed Hayden Spears, stealing a gun and sneakers. Two witnesses, Lorraine Small and Nicholas Carter (Sherrod’s brother), testified to seeing the attack. Small and Nicholas Carter had criminal records. The indictment charged the defendants with robbery related to taking “a gun and/or a pair of sneakers.” Wright tried to introduce Small’s statement where she indicated that Nicholas Carter was planning on attacking Spears but Wright was not at the planning.
r
r
Procedural History
r
A jury convicted Becoats and Wright of second-degree murder and first-degree robbery. The Appellate Division modified the convictions to second-degree manslaughter and affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed Becoats’ conviction but reversed Wright’s.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether a claim that an indictment is duplicitous is preserved for appellate review if not raised at trial.r
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying an adjournment to secure a witness.r
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the robbery conviction.r
4. Whether the trial court erred in excluding Lorraine Small’s testimony regarding a pre-attack conversation.
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because a claim of duplicitousness is not a fundamental